Details for Patent: 6,572,873

« Back to Dashboard

Summary for Patent: 6,572,873

Title:	Generation of therapeutic microfoam
Abstract:	Improved therapeutic sclerosing microfoams and methods and devices for making them are provided that have advantage in producing a consistent profile injectable foam with minimal input by the physician yet using high volume percentages of blood dispersible gases, thus avoiding use of potentially hazardous amounts of nitrogen.
Inventor(s):	Tariq Osman, Sheila Bronwen Flynn, David Dakin Iorwerth Wright, Anthony David Harman, Timothy David Boorman
Assignee:	BTG International Ltd
Application Number:	US09/718,094
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims	Use; Composition; Formulation;

US Patent 6,572,873: Scope, Claim Architecture, and US Landscape for Microfoam-Assisted Sclerotherapy

What does US 6,572,873 claim, in plain scope terms?

US 6,572,873 claims methods to manufacture a specific therapeutic microfoam for sclerotherapy and ties the manufacturing process to tight physical microbubble distributions and performance thresholds. The core inventive construct is a gas/liquid mixing process using one or more small cross-sectional passages (0.1 to 30 μm) that generates a microfoam meeting bubble-size distribution plus microfoam density and half-life constraints, and does so without prior brush-beating.

The claims are structured around:

• A microfoam definition (bubble size distribution; half-life; density)
• A manufacturing mechanism (passing a gas and aqueous sclerosant liquid mixture through defined passage geometries)
• Specific formulation options (blood-dispersible gases; polidocanol or STS)
• Specific process parameters (gas/liquid ratio, pressure, pass-through configuration)
• Negative limitation excluding brush-beating prior step

What are the independent claim elements that define enforceable scope?

The independent claim set is effectively represented by claim 1 and its restated variants (claim 18 and the malformed-dimension restatement in claim 19). Claim 1 is the clearest operative claim.

Claim 1: method to produce microfoam for sclerotherapy

A. Product-by-structure/quality requirements (microfoam specs)

• Microfoam contains gas bubbles with a size distribution meeting:
  • At least 50% by number of gas bubbles ≥ 25 μm have ≤ 200 μm diameter
  • At least 95% of those (the ≥25 μm subset) have ≤ 280 μm diameter
• Microfoam has:
  • Density: 0.07 g/mL to 0.19 g/mL
  • Half-life: at least 2 minutes
• Microfoam is formed without the prior step of beating with a brush.

B. Process mechanism

• The method comprises:
  • Passing a mixture of
  • physiologically acceptable blood dispersible gas capable of being substantially completely dissolved in or absorbed by blood, and
  • aqueous sclerosant liquid
  • Through one or more passages with at least one cross-sectional dimension of 0.1 to 30 μm
• Gas/liquid ratio is controlled to yield the stated density and half-life.

This makes claim 1 an enforceable combination of: 1) bubble-size distribution thresholds,
2) foam stability metrics (half-life),
3) density window, and
4) generation technique (micro-passage passage dimensions),
5) plus a categorical exclusion (no brush-beating pre-step).

How do dependent claims narrow or vary scope?

Dependent claims mostly tighten the bubble distribution, specify gas/liquid ratio targets, specify gas composition, specify sclerosant identity, define passage geometry, and add process variants.

Bubble size distribution refinements

• Claim 2: density narrower: 0.09 g/mL to 0.16 g/mL
• Claim 3: stricter bubble distribution:
  • ≥50% of bubbles ≥25 μm are ≤150 μm
  • ≥95% of those are ≤250 μm

Mixture form alternatives (how the mixture may be presented to the passages)

• Claim 4: mixture is in the form of aerosol, dispersion of bubbles in liquid, or macrofoam.

Gas/liquid ratio expressed in volumetric volumes at STP

• Claim 5: 1 gram sclerosant liquid produces 6.25 to 14.3 volumes of gas (STP).

Gas composition constraint

• Claim 6: physiologically acceptable blood dispersible gas comprises over 50% by volume carbon dioxide and/or oxygen.

Sclerosant identity

• Claim 7: aqueous sclerosant liquid is a solution of polidocanol or sodium tetradecylsulfate (STS).

• Claim 8: carrier comprises saline solution.

Passage geometry detail

• Claim 9: the cross-sectional dimension is diameter; passage diameter 5 μm to 25 μm.
• Claim 10: passage diameter 10 μm to 20 μm; openings in a mesh/screen placed perpendicular to flow.
• Claim 11-14: multiple openings and staged elements:
  • Claim 11: multiple openings in one or more elements
  • Claim 12: multiple openings give 2% to 65% open area
  • Claim 13: element comprises porous material, sequential elements through which gas and liquid pass
  • Claim 14: elements are spaced along the direction of flow in series

Recirculation / multi-pass

• Claim 15: mixture passed through the same passage(s) a number of times.

Gas pressurization window

• Claim 16: gas pressurized 0.01 to 9 bar over atmospheric pressure
• Claim 17: gas pressurized 0.1 to 3 bar over atmospheric pressure

What is the second independent claim variant and why it matters?

• Claim 18 is another method claim that restates essentially the same microfoam specs and passage parameter concept as claim 1, but explicitly frames the input as not already microfoam:
  • The mixture of gas and sclerosant liquid is not in the form of a microfoam.
• The practical consequence is that claim 18 can cover manufacturing workflows where users start from gas-liquid mixture (or a dispersion/macrofoam context) without preforming microfoam upstream.

What about claim 19 (the apparent typographical dimensional error)?

Claim 19 restates the method concept but contains inconsistent units:

• It uses 25 mm / 200 mm / 280 mm and cross-sectional dimension 0.1 to 30 mm.
• This conflicts with the rest of the claim set (μm) and the passage sizes in claim 1 and dependents.

From an enforceability perspective, the likely effect is to reduce clarity of what is being claimed for that claim element-set. The remaining claims (especially claim 1 and its dependent claims) are the actionable core.

What is the practical claim “scope map” for infringement analysis?

A design-around and a risk assessment should be structured around these claim “gates”:

Gate 1: microfoam performance

Accused products or methods must yield:

• density 0.07–0.19 g/mL (or the tighter dependent band if relevant)
• half-life ≥2 minutes
• bubble distribution thresholds relative to a 25 μm cutoff and upper caps (200 μm / 280 μm, or stricter in dependent claims)

Gate 2: microbubble generation mechanism

They must include passing the gas/sclerosant mixture through passages with:

• at least one cross-sectional dimension 0.1–30 μm
• and possibly the tighter 5–25 μm diameter feature

The method is not just about mixing; it is about small-passage generation.

Gate 3: feed composition compatibility

The gas must be:

• physiologically acceptable and blood dispersible, capable of being substantially completely dissolved in or absorbed by blood
• and, for claim 6: >50 vol% carbon dioxide and/or oxygen

The sclerosant must be:

• aqueous solution of polidocanol or STS (claims 7-8 if using saline)

Gate 4: exclusion of brush-beating

Claim 1’s method is formed without prior step of beating with a brush. Any manufacturing route that requires such a brush-beating step as a prerequisite risks stepping outside this claim’s limitation.

Gate 5: parameter-level constraints

Other potentially relevant constraints include:

• gas/liquid ratio in volumes at STP (claim 5)
• gas pressure over atmosphere (claims 16-17)
• mesh/screen and porous staged element architecture (claims 10-14)
• multi-pass through the same passage(s) (claim 15)

What does this patent landscape likely include in US?

US 6,572,873 sits in the microfoam sclerotherapy space where patents commonly cluster around:

• microfoam stability and bubble size distribution,
• preparation methods (mixing device types),
• sclerosant formulations (polidocanol, STS),
• medical use indications (varicose veins and related vascular lesions),
• and manufacturing steps (pre-mixing vs foam-generation inline).

In US practice, this usually produces a landscape with device/process families (foam generation hardware and mixing geometry) alongside composition/stability families and medical method-of-use families.

However, without a provided set of citing/cited documents, family members, continuation claims, or official USPTO/EP/WO publication mapping in your prompt, it is not possible to produce an accurate, document-by-document infringement map, validity map, or ownership map for the specific US patent number.

Scope interoperability with common sclerotherapy foam approaches

Even without asserting other patents’ claim language, the technical scope in US 6,572,873 suggests infringement-relevant overlap when a method:

• uses CO2/O2-rich blood-dispersible gas,
• uses polidocanol or STS in saline,
• creates microfoam with tight half-life and density, and
• uses a micro-passage generation method instead of brush-beating.

The negative brush-beating limitation is the clearest “workflow differentiator” for process-level disputes.

Key potential claim construction flashpoints

These are recurring litigation and FTO focus points in microfoam patents:

1) “At least 50% by number of the gas bubbles of 25 μm diameter and above”
This sets an internal distribution. The measurement method and gating (by number not volume) can drive infringement outcomes.

2) “At least 95% of these gas bubbles are no more than …”
The phrase ties the 95% requirement to the subset already defined (the ≥25 μm population). This is a compound threshold.

3) “Half-life” definition
Stability measurement timing and endpoint definition matter (e.g., foam height decay vs bubble collapse vs light scattering). The claim requires ≥2 minutes.

4) Passage size language
“One or more passages having at least one cross-sectional dimension of from 0.1 to 30 μm” is broad enough to cover non-circular channels as long as the relevant cross-sectional dimension falls in the window, but dependent claims narrow to diameter.

5) Negative limitation: no prior brush beating
If any upstream step includes brush-beating as a necessary process step, it may not satisfy claim 1.

Actionable business interpretation

For R&D and licensing:

• Product performance alone is insufficient for claim 1. The method must also use the micro-passage generation concept and avoid brush beating as a prior step.
• Device architecture is a likely differentiator. Dependent claims are drafted to capture:
  • mesh/screen perpendicular to flow,
  • porous multi-stage elements,
  • staged sequential elements in series,
  • defined open area fraction.

For enforcement strategy:

• The cleanest infringement path is a process with:
  • microfoam meeting the specified bubble distribution plus stability metrics,
  • generated via micro-passage or micro-nozzle/mesh architecture in the μm range,
  • with a feedstock gas that matches CO2 and/or oxygen dominance,
  • and with polidocanol or STS aqueous carrier.

For design-around:

• Shifting away from μm-scale passages, introducing a brush-beating prerequisite, or producing foams whose bubble distribution or half-life falls outside the specified windows are the obvious levers embedded in the claim text.

Key Takeaways

• US 6,572,873 claims microfoam manufacturing methods for sclerotherapy tied to measurable microfoam properties: bubble size distribution (based on number fraction with 25 μm threshold), density 0.07–0.19 g/mL, and half-life ≥2 minutes.
• The method is constrained by process structure: passing a gas/aqueous sclerosant mixture through one or more passages with cross-sectional dimensions 0.1–30 μm, with additional narrowing to 5–25 μm in dependent claims.
• The claim set includes composition and parameter limitations: CO2 and/or oxygen dominant gas, polidocanol or STS in saline, defined gas pressure, gas-to-liquid ratio at STP, mesh/open-area architecture, and optional multi-pass processing.
• Brush-beating is excluded as a prior step in claim 1, making workflow design a key infringement or non-infringement driver.

FAQs

1) Does US 6,572,873 claim only microfoam compositions, or does it also claim manufacturing methods?

It claims methods of producing microfoam, with the microfoam’s bubble size distribution, density, and half-life used as performance limitations.

2) What are the tightest bubble size limits in the independent/dependent claim set?

Claim 1 uses ≤200 μm for at least 50% of bubbles in the ≥25 μm subset and ≤280 μm for at least 95% of that subset; claim 3 tightens to ≤150 μm and ≤250 μm respectively.

**3) What passage sizes are required?

The method requires passages with at least one cross-sectional dimension of 0.1–30 μm (claim 1). Dependent claim 9 specifies 5–25 μm diameters, and claim 10 narrows to 10–20 μm with mesh/screen geometry.

**4) Can the gas be air?

The gas must be a physiologically acceptable blood-dispersible gas capable of being substantially completely dissolved/absorbed by blood. For dependent claim 6, it must include over 50% by volume CO2 and/or oxygen.

5) What is the significance of the brush-beating limitation?

Claim 1 requires microfoam be formed without the prior step of beating with a brush, so processes relying on brush-beating as an upstream step are designed to fall outside this claim’s method limitation.

---

References

[1] USPTO, United States Patent 6,572,873.

Drugs Protected by US Patent 6,572,873

Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	Approval Date	TE	Type	RLD	RS	Patent No.	Patent Expiration	Product	Substance	Delist Req.	Patented / Exclusive Use	Submissiondate

Foreign Priority and PCT Information for Patent: 6,572,873

Foriegn Application Priority Data
Foreign Country	Foreign Patent Number	Foreign Patent Date
United Kingdom	9912356	May 26, 1999

International Family Members for US Patent 6,572,873

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration	Supplementary Protection Certificate	SPC Country	SPC Expiration
Argentina	025530
Argentina	027175
Argentina	089412
Austria	313317
Austria	338807
Australia	2005205772